Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

The J vs K Thread. Pacifists keep out.

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

The J vs K Thread. Pacifists keep out.

Old 19th Mar 2006, 14:46
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by 16 blades
it is because K servicing schedules are based on flying hours, whereas the J's is based solely on time elapsed. 16B
Absolute rubbish it's calender and flying hours as well.
On_The_Top_Bunk is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2006, 14:55
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 231
Devil

OK - I'll stick my toe in the water...

All new aircraft have had problems (a similar turbine problem occured to the K as well as it happens, the reason for 985 cruise instead of 1010. Nothing like history repeating itself is there!).
Agreed all new a/c have problems, but the 985/1010 issue with the T56 is not a problem. Allison have said since new that 1010 is "max continuous" power, but if you do that, it will shorten the life of the engine. So the 985 cruise is as much about £ as it is about servicability. FWIW, USAF cruises at 970 & Allison continually push even further power reductions...

The J can be a very capable aircraft, if allowed to be. It is only about 7 years old, however the unservicability has not been too good, (especially when you compare it to the c17, an aircraft of similar age), but we can put that down to teething problems.
Comparing the C17 & the J is apples & oranges - one was procured via the standard MoD procurement as lead customer for a new plane. The other was leased with restrictions imposed by the owner (Boeing) that it not be modified. Consequently, one works as advertised & the other doesn't (yet). The J would be further along if the MoD had procured it "off the shelf" as it were rather than attempt to subsidise the British aerospace industrie...

I fly classics (albeit a bit modified ), but have flown the J (even if only briefly). The J is a very capable a/c & will eventually fulfill all roles well. But the J's biggest problem is not that Lockheed took too big a leap, rather, they did not take a big enough leap. It's a beautiful glass version of an old-thinking cockpit...not a forward thinking version of a new cockpit.

One of my favourite jabs at Lockheed came when I flew with their test pilots - we were flying an a/c eventually destined for the RAAF, but Lockheed were still wringing it out. After a quite impressive MOS takeoff, the pilots were blathering on about how short it could take off, how high it could climb, & how fast it could go - this was nearly 10 years ago, but I recall a 140K pound plane taking off in 1800' climbing to FL380 & cruising at 360TAS. My very first comment to them was, "That's nice, too bad ATC will never let you up there - how's your fuel economy in the high 20s?" When they asked what I meant, I replied that at FL380, you're in the heart of the jet traffic & waaaayy too slow to keep up. They were a bit quiet on that point.

ATC will likely rarely let you above FL30 - not that the plane can't do it, but they can't accomodate you. Seems to me your fuel savings is lost when you're flying 10K feet below your optimum cruise ceiling & your "fast" TAS isn't quite realised...haven't we learned that lesson?

*donning flame retardant suit*
US Herk is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2006, 16:46
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Swindonshire, UK
Posts: 73
......a bite.......

GnG, you're correct, it would appear my jolly jape has been taken to heart by one of the poor loves.
A little surprised that the tears-before-bedtime came from an antipodean ALM though. Loadmaster, thank you for your kind words - when's it your turn with the family sense of humour then?

Well, keep up the good work kids. glad to see the same tired, non-attributable "facts" are being wheeled out to support the immediate melting down of the J fleet. As an aside, the latest hot rumour for the K replacement (cos all the Js are away on det) is the immediate purchase of several ISO containers. These will be equipped with a bucket of piss in the corner and, for added realism, they will be sited, immobile, at Marshalls of Cambridge. A winning plan i think you'll agree.

keep it real kids

PS. senga, nice to hear you again
fat albert is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2006, 18:22
  #144 (permalink)  

Short Blunt Shock
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Absolute rubbish it's calender and flying hours as well.
I was told otherwise by somebody who REALLY ought to know. I'll take his word.

How times have changed....it wasn't so long ago that we were ripping into the 'Jaffia' for their Mk5 gliders.....seem to remember they got all feminine and hissy about taking banter THEN as well....

Never mind....the Mk5s won't be a problem for long....we'll have their wings soon!

16B
16 blades is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2006, 21:36
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
I once wrote on PPRuNe (early 03-ish) to ask all of you (nicely I might add) to 'stop washing our dirty linen in public', as we were all about to go to war and we really should be on the same side.

I thought I might do the same again but then, considering the title of this thread, thought better of it!

I may be wrong (I often am) but now there seems to be less genuine animosity between the Sqns and some of the posts have been very, very funny!

Please correct me but have the north and south sides located the 'Banter Master Switch' and moved it away from the 'O-F-F position'?

Keep the banter coming and good luck both for the next installment of the 'Continuing Adventures of Rompers Green'.
flipster is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2006, 22:48
  #146 (permalink)  

Short Blunt Shock
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Yes, it's only banter, Flipster. However, some on here (myslef included, I might add!) have let themselves take it a little too seriously on occasion! Since the inception of Tac interfly profiles and joint fleet exercises, we get to see a little of what each other does - not really the case 2/3 years ago.

16B
16 blades is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2006, 22:59
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
I am sooo glad to hear it! Am (slightly) jealous!
flipster is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2006, 23:03
  #148 (permalink)  

Short Blunt Shock
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
What, no Boeing-Airbus banter like this over at SleazyJet?



16B
16 blades is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2006, 23:37
  #149 (permalink)  

Short Blunt Shock
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
It's the same wing, more or less. It's a straight bolt-on, bolt off - more or less. And what's more, it's the CHEAPEST SHORT TERM SOLUTION - that may well be the clincher.

And the >FL290-300 problem is mainly due to traffic levels in Euronazi airspace. And since WE are in Euronazi airspace, it's a problem our J's must have going ANYWHERE (since they have to start here!). Besides, I thought the J was RVSM compliant?

I'm told (by a J pilot) that your fuel consumption in mid-20s is pretty much the same as ours, give or take. True? This REALLY should have been anticipated, and external tanks fitted - but then, that would require somebody in the procurement chain to admit a flaw in the plan....

Sadly, the J has suffered badly from lack of forethought right through the procurement and into-service phases - it may be (slightly) faster (when allowed) and have more power, and more toys, but it is nowhere near what it really ought to be - which is a shame.

16B
16 blades is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2006, 23:53
  #150 (permalink)  

Short Blunt Shock
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
It's a ridiculous suggestion.
True. But this IS the UK after all, which doesn't necessarily mean
It will never happen.
People don't buy aircraft new and cut the wings off them.
No, and they don't cut HALF their engineering manpower at a time of gross overstretch, do they.......?

....nor do they spend lots of money on new real estate shortly before closing a base, do they.....?

I could go on....

16B
16 blades is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2006, 23:57
  #151 (permalink)  

Short Blunt Shock
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
If you stick a J and H flying next to each other, the J will ALWAYS be more fuel effecient. For starters your 300KTAS you fly at is pretty much our long range cruise. If we are at 320KTAS it's still more effecient.

Besides, a J at 26-28,000 (temp dependent) fully loaded will ALWAYS be more effecient, and faster (and can get above a lot of the weather) than the full loaded H/K sitting at 18-22K
Quite possibly, but there isn't very much in it. Your H's may use a lower TIT for cruise than we do - I think we're pretty much the only nation left putting 985 deg through the turbine in the cruise. Our normal HSC TAS is around 310-320 in the low 20s, with an average load and AUW.

Not RVSM compliant yet.. The aircraft meets the certification requirement but no-one wants to pay for the paperwork.
Now THERE'S a surprise. However good EITHER aircraft is, we are BOTH held back by a chronic lack of funding.

16B
16 blades is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2006, 00:02
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Oxon
Posts: 72
Let me get this right, the J was designed to fly at the higher levels, but still isnt RVSM compliant, am i missing something here, it aint difficult to get it with a modern ac, and its taken how many years???
dessert_flyer is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2006, 01:01
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oxford
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by 16 blades
Here we go again.
Oh, well, in for a penny......
ALL J CHIMPS ARE [email protected]!!!!!!!

16B
16 Blades - a master of subtlety and diplomacy smooths the waters yet again!
Hadders is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2006, 07:56
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
16B

We don't do banter in the airlines, old bean - it might be taken for frivolity and unprofessionalism.

Can the J do a LYE-LEU-ADA/AKR 'missile run with no tail winds to the med' day and not run out of crew duty?
flipster is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2006, 12:24
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
?? Obviously not, then - just thought I'd ask.
flipster is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2006, 15:07
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Swindonshire, UK
Posts: 73
Flipster, my dear boy! It is with great regret that i must inform you that such an onerous task would indeed be within the reach of the humble J. It would be beneath us but we could it. Sorry

I'm rather taken with the idea of putting the Mk5 wings onto the Mk3s - now that would be a farce multiplier In fact, as a deal-maker we'll throw in the urinals too. Pop em thru nav training and away you go - we'll even pop back on a regular basis and top them up
fat albert is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2006, 17:56
  #157 (permalink)  

Short Blunt Shock
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Hadders,

16 Blades - a master of subtlety and diplomacy smooths the waters yet again!
Just attempting to get the thread off in the spirit it was intended, and to take it straight to where it would inevitaby end up! Had somebody posted a similar comment aimed at the K immediately afterwards, I guess we could've wrapped the thread up there and then......

16B
16 blades is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2006, 22:08
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 231
as for you taking the Mk5 wings. Yup, that will happen.. NOT! Tear an aircraft to pieces to take the wings and put it on your old clapped out piece of .....
It was being discussed as long ago as 2002 for the SF mini-fleet. In the end, I believe they paid Marshalls to rebuild the wings on some of them after their abuse in Op BLEED (horrible op name!) and follow-on Ops...

The other reasoning (at least for the SF mini-fleet) was the belief back then that helicopter refuelling was imminent with Mk3 Chinook - the J wings have the outboard hard points under the skin required for the pods.

The Mk5 is a bit of a conundrum - original procurement intentions notwithstanding, it's a short version of a "strat" lifter...since even the Mk4 isn't operating anywhere near it's ceiling limits, flying around w/one less pallet seems even sillier. So if you're going to "borrow" the wings off some, those would be the obvious choice...
US Herk is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2006, 23:05
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Swindonshire, UK
Posts: 73
Obvious to whom? My wife I imagine, given the bizarre logic you're employing....
There are plenty of herc wings going begging in AMARC if that were all that were needed.

I'm afraid the idea of scrapping Mk5s to save a few 1s and 3s is in the same league as melting down railings and saucepans to make Spitfires - fanciful and perhaps morale boosting but ultimately rubbish.

Still, it's good to see mad ideas still abound. The urinals offer still stands....
fat albert is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2006, 23:07
  #160 (permalink)  

Short Blunt Shock
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
I'll take your microwave, if they're on offer....

16B
16 blades is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.